From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andino v. Samenga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 2001
287 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted September 5, 2001.

October 1, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated August 28, 2000, as, upon an order of the same court, dated July 7, 2000, inter alia, granting the motion of the defendant Alan D. Pardo to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him, is in favor of the defendant Alan D. Pardo and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek Shoot, New York, N Y (Brian J. Shoot and Diane Welch Bando of counsel), for appellant.

L'Abbate Balkan Colavita Contini, LLP, Garden City, N Y (Matthew K. Flanagan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment, dated August 28, 2000, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Alan D. Pardo. The judgment was entered upon an order of the same court, dated July 7, 2000, which, inter alia, granted Pardo's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff appealed from both the order and the judgment. The appeal from the order was dismissed by this court (see, Andino v. Samenga, A.D.2d [2d Dept., May 30, 2001]) upon the plaintiff's failure to perfect the appeal (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8[h]). Although the plaintiff would normally be precluded from relitigating the issues which could have been raised on the prior appeal from the order (see, Rubeo v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 N.Y.2d 750; Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350), under the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to review the propriety of the dismissal (see, Faricelli v. TSS Seedman's, 94 N.Y.2d 772).

The Supreme Court properly granted Pardo's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him as no attorney-client relationship existed between the plaintiff and Pardo (see, Shannon v. Gordon, 249 A.D.2d 291, 292-293; DeFalco v. Cutaia, 236 A.D.2d 358).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Andino v. Samenga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 2001
287 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Andino v. Samenga

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS R. ANDINO, appellant, v. LORETTA F. SAMENGA, defendant, ALAN D…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 1, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
730 N.Y.S.2d 864

Citing Cases

PUGACH v. HBO PICTURES, INC.

Absent an attorney-client relationship between plaintiffs and FWRV, plaintiffs' claim of legal malpractice…

KB Operating, LLC v. Briggs

Moreover, before any conveyance may occur, in accordance with the Town of North Castle Town Code § A216-2 and…